Get pipeline run logs

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'bounded plain-text log' which hints at a size limit, but it doesn't disclose pagination behavior, ordering, whether logs are truncated, authentication requirements, or what happens when no logs exist. For a read tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single efficient sentence that front-loads the primary action and then adds the bounded-text variant. Every word earns its place, though it could be slightly more explicit about parameter roles.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. An agent doesn't know the return format, how the two modes differ in output, whether maxChars applies to both modes, or what error conditions exist. For a 4-parameter tool with no structured safety or output metadata, this is incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the four parameters. It only clarifies that logId selects a single log and maxChars bounds the plain-text output; runId and project are left entirely to the schema's bare type definitions. The description adds some meaning but doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('List'/'fetch') and resource ('log records for a pipeline run'/'bounded plain-text log'), which clearly distinguishes the two modes of operation. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the resource is specific enough that an agent can tell it apart from list_pipeline_runs and get_pipeline_run.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context: use this when you need logs for a specific pipeline run, and the two modes (list vs fetch bounded text) give some selection guidance. However, it doesn't state when to prefer this over get_pipeline_run or list_pipeline_runs, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.